July 1, 2026

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M.  on July 1, 2026 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Ken  Horntvedt, Marshall Nelson, Wes Johnson, Dave Marhula, Tom Mio, Tim Nordlof and Nancy Dunnell. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 3, 2026 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Mio. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Mio and Horntvet for Slick CUP 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #26-01V by Steven and Cathleen Wehman:  Government Lot Nine (9), Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West of the Fifth Principal Meridian,  Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID #23.13.31.000. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance and 5.11 of the Lake of the Woods County Subsurface Sewage  Treatment System Ordinance to allow the replacement of septic system  

components that will not meet the required one hundred (100) foot setback from  Wabanica Creek. The Wabanica Creek is a Tributary River Segment. 

Steve and Kathy were in attendance and discussed their need for a replacement septic system and  how the home was built that doesn’t allow for a replacement grinder ejector tank to be a  minimum of 100’ from Wabanica Creek. Approximate distance to a grinder ejector pump will be  65’. The group then moved to the finding of facts. 

Name of Applicant: Steven and Cathleen Wehman Date: July 1, 2026 Parcel #: 23.13.31.000 Variance Application #: 26-01V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Upgrade of septic system. 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural residential. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? House construction and location next to  Wabanica Creek. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Current septic failing and location. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same. 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Septic failure and location. 

Condition(s): None. 

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE  VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve by Mio, seconded by Nelson. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Variance #26-02V by Specialty Concrete, LLC (David  Nelson): The SE¼SW¼, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Fifty eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID #43.20.34.000.  Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.4 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow the replacement of a structure that will not  meet the required one hundred fifty (150) foot setback from the South Branch of  the Rapid River. The South Branch of the Rapid River is a Forested River  Segment. 

David and Heather were in attendance and discussed their need to build a new cabin in an  existing clearing that doesn’t meet current required setbacks from the Rapid River. They want to 

utilize the original area that used to have a mobile home on it even closer to the river than their  proposed cabin. The group then moved to the finding of facts. 

Name of Applicant: Specialty Concrete, LLC (David Nelson) Date: July 1, 2026 Parcel #: 43.20.34.000 Variance Application #: 26-02V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

2. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural Residential. New construction from  existing footprint. Elevation consideration.  

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural residential. 

5. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Limited area and elevation. 

6. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location and limited area. 

Condition(s): None.

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE  VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve by Marhula, seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Variance #26-03V Dennis Johnson: The NW¼SE¼; S½SE¼,  Section Ten (10), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty four (34) West – Parcel ID #21.10.32.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 801.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance and Sections  5.6 and 5.8 of the Lake of the Woods Subsurface Sewage Treatment System  Ordinance, to allow the applicant to install a holding tank for a seasonal cabin  with a pressurized water system. This is a non-shoreland property and is zoned as  a Rural Residential District (R2). 

Dennis Johnson was in attendance and explained his plans for the existing cabin to add water to  the structure via a sand point well. There are existing holding tanks already installed. Time spent  on the property is typically less than one week a year. The group moved on to the findings of  fact. 

Name of Applicant: Dennis Johnson Date: July 1, 2026 Parcel #: 21.10.32.000 Variance Application #: 26-03V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

3. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Seasonal/Recreational. 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

7. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location and lack of power. 

8. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No power and location. 

Condition(s): 

1. Variance ceases upon sale or transfer of property. 

2. Sewage pumping contract to be applied for with a certified sewage pumping contractor. 

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE  VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve by Marhula, seconded by Nordlof. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Variance #26-04V by George and Judy Risser etal.: The  SW¼NW¼; less deeded, and a 185’x 300’ tract of land lying in the SW¼NW¼,  all within Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168)  North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID #’s 02.29.23.020 and 

02.29.22.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 501.1 of the Lake  of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconfiguration of property  lines that will result in a lot that will be less than the required five (5) acre  minimum lot size. This portion of the property is considered non-shoreland and is  zoned as a Rural Residential District (R2). 

Jack Goulet was representing George, Judy, Wendy and Roxanne Risser and discussed their  plans for breaking off the golf course property to be sold. The clubhouse and post office would  remain with the golf course and the home would be a standalone parcel. The group then moved  on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: George and Judy Risser etal Date: July 1, 2026 

Parcel #: 02.29.23.020 and  02.29.22.000 

Variance Application  #:  

26-04V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

4. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change, except lot lines. 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential, no change. 

9. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Previous lot line description. Non-shoreland  lot size have increased. 

10. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Clean up private property lot lines. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change.

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Clean up property lot lines. 

Condition(s): 

1. Property must be surveyed as a condition of the approved variance. 

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE  VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve by Mio, seconded by Nelson. All in favor. 

With no further business, Mio motioned to close the Board of Adjustment, second by Nelson. All  in favor. Motion by Marhula to open the Planning Commission, second by Johnson. All in favor. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #26-02CU by Geoffrey and Allison  Slick: A .78-acre tract in Government Lot 1, Section Twelve (12), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID #  23.12.14.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the  movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of  the Rainy River to re-slope the bank to minimize sloughing and future erosion.  The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

Geoffrey Slick was present and discussed plans to stabilize sloughing and erosion of the  shoreline. Josh mentioned correspondence from the interim area Hydrologist noting to stay  above the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) of 1062.1’. The group then moved on to the  findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Geoffrey and Allison Slick Date: July 1, 2026

Location/Legal Description: A .78-acre tract in Government Lot 1, Section Twelve (12),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West Parcel Number: 23.12.14.040 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the movement of  more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River to re-slope  the bank to minimize sloughing and future erosion. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River  Segment. 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Better access to public waters. Within growth corridor. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Provent erosion. 

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Prevent erosion and correct the problem. 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway  of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type  and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Reshaped and reseeded. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? No change. 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing location. Rainy River. 

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with  Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or  other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? 

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Stay above 1062.1’ ordinary high-water mark. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

Motion to recommend approval with conditions to the Board of Commissioners by Nelson,  seconded by Johnson. All in favor. Abstaining was Horntvedt and Mio. 

July 1, 2026 ___________________________________   Date Ken Horntvedt   Chair, Planning Commission  This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Nelson. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 

7:00 P.M. on July 2, 2025 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tim Nordlof, Tom Mio, Marshall  Nelson, Ken Horntvedt, Nancy Dunnell, Wes Johnson and Dave Marhula. Others present were Land and Water Planning  Director Josh Stromlund. Absent was Marshall Nelson. 

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. 

Approval of the Agenda: Mio/ Marhula. All in favor. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 4, 2025 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Johnson. All in favor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #25-02CU by YBMC, LLC: The East 165 feet of  the West 198 feet of Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred  Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thiry-four (34) West (Angle), Lake of the Woods County,  Minnesota, except the South 290 feet thereof – Parcel ID# 02.25.24.020. Applicant is requesting  a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 1105 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to allow a residential planned unit development consisting of up to six (6) multi-unit  storage buildings in a non-shoreland Commercial-Recreation Zoning District (CR). 

Gregg Hennum was in attendance to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the  information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

Name of Applicant: YBMC, LLC Date: July 2, 2025 

Location/Legal Description: The East 165 feet of the West 198 feet of Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25),  Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thiry-four (34) West (Angle), Lake of the Woods County,  Minnesota, except the South 290 feet thereof. Parcel Number: 02.25.24.020 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 1105 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow a residential planned unit development consisting of up to six (6) multi-unit storage  buildings in a non-shoreland Commercial-Recreation Zoning District (CR). 

1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Recreational area. 

2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

3. Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation  and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not?  

4. Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative  cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
5.  Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

6. Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative  cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
7.  Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Young’s Bay Drive. 
8. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Recreational area. 
9. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? 

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

10. Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to  accommodate the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 2 1000 gal holding tanks 
11. Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the  Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
12. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? To be designed based on flow. 
13. Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft  that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
14. If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material  that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

15. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? 

16.  If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size  requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? 1 sign 6’x8’ 

17. If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how  the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On site parking. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

1. No habitation is allowed. 

2. If applicable, a stormwater permit will be required. 

3. No overnight parking or use of the units is allowed. 

4. No outside storage is allowed. 

5. Certificate of Septic Compliance to be obtained by 10-31-25. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board  of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

July 2, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt, Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

Motion to approve with conditions by Marhula, seconded by Johnson. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #25-03CU by GWE, LLC: The East half, of the  East half, of the Northwest quarter, of the Northeast quarter (E½E½NW¼NE¼) in Section  Twenty-seven (27), Township One-hundred sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West  – Parcel ID# 19.27.12.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by  Section 1105 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow a residential planned  unit development consisting of up to six (6) multi-unit storage buildings in a non-shoreland Rural  Residential Zoning District (R2). 

Gregg Hennum was in attendance to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. As the Board recognized  this application as nearly identical to the last one, they moved right on to the findings of fact.  

Name of Applicant: GWE, LLC Date: July 2, 2025 

Location/Legal Description: The East half, of the East half, of the Northwest quarter, of the Northeast quarter  (E½E½NW¼NE¼) in Section Twenty-seven (27), Township One-hundred sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West. Parcel Number: 19.27.12.010

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 1105 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow a residential planned unit development consisting of up to six (6) multi-unit storage  buildings in a non-shoreland Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Recreational area. 

2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? 

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

3.  Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation  and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
4. Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative  cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
5.  Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

6. Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative  cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
7. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road 8. 
8. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Recreational area. 
9. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? 

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

10. Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to  accommodate the project proposal? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 2 1000 gallon holding tanks. 
11. Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the  Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
12. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not?  

13. Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft  that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
14. If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material  that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

15.  Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

16. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size  requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? 1 6’x8’ sign. 

17. If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how  the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On site parking. 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1.  No habitation is allowed. 
2. If applicable, a stormwater permit will be required. 
3. No overnight parking or use of the units is allowed. 
4. No outside storage is allowed. 
5. Certificate of Septic Compliance to be obtained by 10-31-25. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board  of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

July 2, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt, Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance

Motion to approve with conditions by Mio, seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Final Plat of Youngs Bay Mancaves by YBMC, LLC: The East 165 feet of  the West 198 feet of Government Lot 3, Section Twenty-five (25), Township One Hundred  Sixty-eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West (Angle), Lake of the Woods County,  Minnesota, except the South 290 feet thereof – Parcel ID# 02.25.24.020. Applicant is requesting  to create a residential planned unit development consisting of twelve (12) storage units. 

Gregg Hennum remained in attendance to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board reviewed comments and recommendations from the  County Surveyor, County Recorder, County Attorney as well as Land and Water Planning. 

Marhula made a motion to approve the Final Plat, seconded by Mio. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Final Plat Baudette Mancaves by GWE, LLC: The East half, of the East  half, of the Northwest quarter, of the Northeast quarter (E½E½NW¼NE¼) in Section Twenty seven (27), Township One-hundred sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel  ID# 19.27.12.010. Applicant is requesting to create a residential planned unit development  consisting of twelve (12) storage units. 

Gregg Hennum remained in attendance to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board reviewed comments and recommendations from the  County Surveyor, County Recorder, County Attorney as well as Land and Water Planning. 

Mio made a motion to approve the Final Plat, seconded by Johnson. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #25-06IU by R&E LOW, LLC: Government Lot 5 and  the East ½ of the Southeast ¼ (E½SE¼), Section Nine (9), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Zippel) – Parcel ID#18.09.14.010. Applicant is  requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential Zoning District  (R2). 

Milo and Bryce Ravndalen were in attendance to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The  board discussed the information in the application. Discussion regarding altered window locations and ensuring  egress was available in all sleeping rooms was confirmed by Bryce. There was no correspondence and nobody  in the audience wished to speak. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: R&E LOW, LOC Application Number: 25-06IU Date: July 2, 2025 

Location/Legal Description: Government Lot 5 and the East ½ of the Southeast ¼ (E½SE¼), Section Nine (9),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West 

Parcel Number: 18.09.14.010

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Sections 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District. 

1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Vacation and recreational area. 

2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This includes the following  items: 

• Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms
• Compliant septic system and sized accordingly • Fire extinguisher(s) 
• Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 
• Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Per application. 

3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Recreational. 
4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Wildwood Drive. 
5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the  increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 
6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Plenty of parking on site. 

7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Nothing needed. 

8. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size  requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? 12 per application. 

10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Per application. 

11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Per application.

The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or transfer of the  

X 

Property, whichever occurs first. 

X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. 

X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application. 

X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

X No on street parking is allowed. 

X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

Additional Conditions are as follows:  

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board  of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

July 2, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt, Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

Motion to approve with conditions by Marhula, seconded by Nordlof. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #25-04CU by Gregory and Steven Grandgeorge:  The North half of the North Half of the South Half (N½N½S½) of Government Lot Three (3),  Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West  (Angle) – Parcel ID#06.02.14.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required  by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10)  cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of  shoreline stabilization due to the 2022 high water event. Lake of the Woods is a General  Development Lake. 

Gregory Grandgeorge was in attendance to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

Name of Applicant: Gregory and Steven Grandgeorge Date: July 2, 2025

Location/Legal Description: The North half of the North Half of the South Half (N½N½S½) of Government  Lot Three (3), Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West 

Parcel Number: 06.02.14.010 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore  impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of shoreline stabilization due to the 2022 high water event.  Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. 

1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Shoreline stabilization. 

2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

3. Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including  sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline stabilization. 
4. Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and  vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
5. Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or  tributaries? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? LOW shoreline. 
6. Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing  vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
7. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
8. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline. 
9. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? L.O.W shoreline. 

10.  Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate  to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
11. Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of  the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
12. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
13. Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of  watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
14. If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous  material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit  been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
15. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

16. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and  size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent  possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  
17. If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately  demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Follow DNR specifications for shoreline. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods  County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )

July 2, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt, Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

Motion to approve with conditions by Mio, seconded by Johnson. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #25-05CU by Buell Consulting, Inc. on behalf of  Lake Area Construction, Inc.: The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the  Southwest Quarter (SE¼SW¼SW¼), Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID#19.20.31.000. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential  District (R2). 

Ken noted that there was an email sent by Buell Consulting asking to delay the Buell Consulting application 25- 05CU to a future date. 

Marhula motioned to table application 25-05CU, seconded by Dunnell. All in favor 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Dunnell made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Nordlof. All  in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:12 PM.